Various approaches are known for preventing abusive use of firearms, such as e.g. pistols, revolvers and rifles. For example, access to a firearm can be prevented by enabling physical access to the firearm for authorized persons only (e.g. storing the firearm in a firearm locker). Furthermore, it is known to activate and/or deactivate electrical and/or electronic components of firearms depending on whether the firearm is operated by an authorized person (e.g. by means of a transmitter of the authorized person transmitting an enabling or disabling signal to a receiver in the firearm).
These approaches are, inter alia, error-prone insofar as the firearm itself remains operable and the firearm can be used when the safeguarding measures are overcome. What is more, in the case of firearms, it is not possible to disable a firearm on a software basis, comparable to an anti-theft device of a motor vehicle.
There are approaches for actually disabling a firearm, wherein the firearm is, at least in part, destroyed by means of an explosive disposed within the firearm. These approaches are, inter alia, error-prone for the following reasons. In some approaches, the explosives are contained in devices provided separately from the firearm which are to be inserted e.g. into the barrel or magazine well of the firearm and are consequently effective only then. In addition, bystanders may be injured by the explosives. Furthermore, in these approaches, mechanical components of the firearm are destroyed which can be replaced also by unauthorized persons, such as e.g. the barrel.